To clarify my intents with this thread:
American politics present not the same two contestants each time, but the same two variations of the same contestant. By fixing candidates with insider party politics via the “primary” system, America has perfected the art of a falsely bifurcated one-party system with two faces. Besides window-dressings to excite the proles, the only differences between the candidates are in what special-interests they pander to. Appearances and breakable promises aside, they are never permitted to differ by even an iota on any question of long-term or large-scale importance.
But my criticism is not limited to America—though they’re by far the worst in the West for institutionally rigged electoral politics, and the best at hiding their corruption.
In principle, right answers are not determined by numeric majorities. Were you poll Roger Ver, James Dimon, and Greg Maxwell on engineering, monetary, and economic questions, then the resulting answers would all be wrong. Advancing this concept, let Minitru Media hype a new discovery that 2+2=5. Then, take a poll on the value of twice two. You will get votes for “4” from Winston Smith and a few others who are politically incorrect, and “5” from the overwhelming majority. This is the underlying principle of democracy; and it’s not a bug: It’s a feature.
Moreover, universal suffrage is ochlocracy by definition. Yet a mob never rules itself; and no stable government has ever permitted idiots even the slightest chance of influencing important matters of policy. Who rules mob rule? And what are the implications of idiots being permitted a vote?
If my vote has value equal to the vote of a grinning idiot who casts ballots based on what’s shiniest on TV and Facebook, then the value of my vote equals zero. However, it is valuable to the system. No government in all of history has ever survived without at least the tacit consent of the majority—no king, no republic, no dictatorship. “Voter turnout” numbers are part of a feedback loop of manufactured consent, which protects the system from either imploding under its own weight, or exploding in revolution.
By refusing to vote, I incrementally lower voter turnout numbers. More importantly to me, I preserve my unimpeached moral right to condemn a system which I do not endorse, do not consent to, and indeed, do not support in any way (except insofar as may be forced from me at the point of a gun, e.g. taxes). If I were to cast a vote, then I would be admitting that I think the system has at least some legitimacy. But I do not so think—thus I do not so do.
Refuse the system. Boycott the vote.
Does the system really give a shit if you vote or not?
I think your math is wrong up there. If your vote is equal to an idiot's vote then it's not zero. And if you don't vote for the same subject then you're cancelling out the idiot's vote, which is presumably a good thing. If you don't vote however - then you're making it zero. In other words, if you're not using the system to your advantage (and I assume you're not actively rebelling either) then you're basically losing to the idiots. E.g. they elect someone who hikes your taxes up and you're letting them do it.
Boycotts don't work unless you have the scale comparable to that of a vote needed to enact change. What works is either vote or pitchforks, at least as far as I've seen. Passive protest - not so much.
Also I don't recall voter turnout being a problem for a revolution, in fact I'm quite certain I have witnessed a revolution in a place where voter turnout was in the high 90s. But I was very young back then so let's say my recollection is wrong.
Edit. Just to make this clear - I think a boycott might make sense in some limited circumstances, just not for the reasons you stated. E.g. if the vote count is rigged, or if there are safety concerns.